SHOW ME THE MONEY/GOALS!

[Richard]

Canada and USA reach 2007 World Cup Finals in China

A Grainey Day in the Americas

By Tim Grainey for World Football Pages

Carson, CA, Nov. 22, 2006

SHOW ME THE <s>MONEY </s>GOALS!

Had Charmaine Hooper not been such a delusional, whiney crap-hole, money-hungry, ego-maniac, she may have been at the Sunday Final, and the 2007 World Cup. But she is and she won't be, and Nov. 22 a squad far more talented than Hooper ever was demonstrated that she won't be missed at all on the field. Ironically, her self-destructive nature appears to be perfectly suited for a position with the CSA.

http://www.worldfootballpages.com/articles/intl-grainey-061122.htm

Strong words.

[The Ref]

Yes, indeed strong words. But more than that they are insulting and foul. Specially when, as you say, not all the fact are known. This guy Griffiths, the editor of WFP is known for having a deep rooted hatred towards Charmaine. That was evident when his rag was still published. So I am not concerned with what he says or does.

You on the other hand Richard, seem to enjoy any bit of writing detrimental to these three players character. It seems you did not hesitate to publish Mr. Griffiths words in your prestigious website, but have not, even once, publish the writing in Hooper's website. So, excuse me if I think your fairness of free press is colored by your personal feelings.

[Richard]

Those are not the words of Chris Griffiths no matter what you may think his views on Charmaine Hooper might be.

Those are the words of the author of the piece Tim Grainey.

Don't shoot the messenger because you don't like the message.

[The Ref]

quote:Originally posted by Richard

Those are not the words of Chris Griffiths no matter what you may think his views on Charmaine Hooper might be.

Those are the words of the author of the piece Tim Grainey.

Don't shoot the messenger because you don't like the message.

I can read too. WFP is Mr. Griffiths' website and he has control of it.

As far as your website goes, don't try to slip away from your partiality. It does not fit you!

[Richard]

If you took the trouble to read the disclaimers you would see that publishers warn that the views expressed in articles published do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. Also, if you take issue with what is published why not write to the editor or contribute a counter piece instead of taking personal jibes at the publisher because an article does not reflect your particular personal viewpoint?

[The Ref]

quote:Originally posted by Richard

If you took the trouble to read the disclaimers you would see that publishers warn that the views expressed in articles published do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. Also, if you take issue with what is published why not write to the editor or contribute a counter piece instead of taking personal jibes at the publisher because an article does not reflect your particular personal viewpoint?

I consider disclaimers to be 'washing of the hands'.

It would be really nice if your website would not refrain from publishing the statements found on Hooper's website re this dispute with Pellerud. You see Richard, but not publishing something you are</u> taking sides.

[Kaylee]

Richard, you must be delighted to have the opportunity to post the foul cutline from the photo of Charmaine on Football Pages. It so perfectly mirrors your opinion of her. And the beauty of it is that you are just the messenger.

[Richard]

quote:Originally posted by The Ref

I consider disclaimers to be 'washing of the hands'.

It would be really nice if your website would not refrain from publishing the statements found on Hooper's website re this dispute with Pellerud. You see Richard, but not publishing something you are</u> taking sides.

Sorry, as a general rule I will not publish anything from a player's personal website. If you're looking for bias there is no better place to find it than such sites.

[Richard]

quote:Originally posted by Kaylee

Richard, you must be delighted to have the opportunity to post the foul cutline from the photo of Charmaine on Football Pages. It so perfectly mirrors your opinion of her. And the beauty of it is that you are just the messenger.

Your own posts have certainly demonstrated you to be an ardent cheerleader for Charmaine Hooper no matter what her behaviour. More than once I have urged everybody to be sure to consider evidence from both sides before passing final judgement on the whole affair and to consider the structure and authority of the national team program - how does this become a condemnation of Hooper in your mind? Perhaps because I refuse to jump on the 'condemn the CSA and everybody associated with it before the evidence is in' bandwagon?

Posting this quote here from the WFP article was intended to provoke a response and it clearly did. They were not my words, I say again, don't shoot the messenger because you don't like the message.

[Richard]

quote:Originally posted by The Ref

I consider disclaimers to be 'washing of the hands'.

It would be really nice if your website would not refrain from publishing the statements found on Hooper's website re this dispute with Pellerud. You see Richard, but not publishing something you are</u> taking sides.

Consider what you like Ref but if media outlets only published reports which coincided with the personal views of the owners then you would have every reason to accuse us and me in particular of personal bias. Make up your mind.

[The Ref]

quote:Originally posted by Richard

Sorry, as a general rule I will not publish anything from a player's personal website. If you're looking for bias there is no better place to find it than such sites.

But why not publish it? The "disclaimer" on your site covers you.

Who can speak best about a victim than the victim him/herself? Who do you think will speak at the inquiry? The newspaper journalists that you kindly published or the parties in the dispute?

You said you published the WFP article to provoke a response, fair enough. You don't think the name calling was biased on the part of WFP?

[Richard]

Just because WFP published an article that included a few words of somewhat inflammatory criticism of Charmaine Hooper's behaviour towards the CSA and the WNT staff doesn't automatically mean that the paper and its publisher are irrevocably biassed against her. This was not an editorial opinion piece written by the publisher, it was a contribution by one of WFP's columnists. Just because I cut and paste that small piece from the article into a post here (together with a link to the whole article) precisely because I perceived it as somewhat inflammatory, does not mean that I am irrevocably biassed against Charmaine Hooper.

There have been plenty of mainstream media reports, published on my website too, that have been sympathetic to the cause of the three suspended WNT players. Strange how you and other cheerleaders for the three don't seem to notice or remember those but jump up and down frothing at the mouth metaphorically speaking when something critical of them is published. Maybe you need to check the site more frequently :-)

[Guest Jeffery S.]

quote:Originally posted by Richard

Canada and USA reach 2007 World Cup Finals in China

A Grainey Day in the Americas

By Tim Grainey for World Football Pages

Carson, CA, Nov. 22, 2006

SHOW ME THE <s>MONEY </s>GOALS!

Had Charmaine Hooper not been such a delusional, whiney crap-hole, money-hungry, ego-maniac, she may have been at the Sunday Final, and the 2007 World Cup. But she is and she won't be, and Nov. 22 a squad far more talented than Hooper ever was demonstrated that she won't be missed at all on the field. Ironically, her self-destructive nature appears to be perfectly suited for a position with the CSA.

http://www.worldfootballpages.com/articles/intl-grainey-061122.htm

Strong words.

Then you go to the BS board and you hear more than one convinced that if we'd had Charmaine on board the winner of the match would have been Canada.

So I think the difference between losing by a bit and winning by a bit is important, and if anyone in Canada could make that difference for Canada it is the person being slighted here.

Odd to see them get so haughty and arrogant after losing; wouldn't they rather have had Hooper and Lang and have won? You think, maybe, that the answer is no, and that makes you doubt about the whole line of attack.

[Guest Ed]

quote:Originally posted by Richard

Just because WFP published an article that included a few words of somewhat inflammatory criticism of Charmaine Hooper's behaviour towards the CSA and the WNT staff doesn't automatically mean that the paper and its publisher are irrevocably biassed against her. This was not an editorial opinion piece written by the publisher, it was a contribution by one of WFP's columnists. Just because I cut and paste that small piece from the article into a post here (together with a link to the whole article) precisely because I perceived it as somewhat inflammatory, does not mean that I am irrevocably biassed against Charmaine Hooper.

There have been plenty of mainstream media reports, published on my website too, that have been sympathetic to the cause of the three suspended WNT players. Strange how you and other cheerleaders for the three don't seem to notice or remember those but jump up and down frothing at the mouth metaphorically speaking when something critical of them is published. Maybe you need to check the site more frequently :-)

I think 'blatant' would be somewhat more truthful than 'somewhat'. That article and many of your opinions seem to me to be written with the underlying assumption that Charmaine Hooper was a member of our CWNT and bailed on an accepted invitation to travel with the team. From what I recall, Charmaine Hooper was informed that she was off the team while on the tarmac at O'Hare some 10 days before the game against China that she 'missed'. The date(s) for the inquiry was supposed to be decided today; hopefully the matter can be resolved 'amicably' as they say.

[Richard]

I am sure we all hope the matter can be resolved amicably, and based on fact not hearsay and surmise.

The publisher of WFP has now written and published his own opinion piece on the subject of Hooper and crew - now you can legitimately have a go at him if you wish since these are his own words :-)

http://www.worldfootballpages.com/articles/cda-chrisvg-061128.htm

[The Ref]

quote:Originally posted by Richard

I am sure we all hope the matter can be resolved amicably, and based on fact not hearsay and surmise.

The publisher of WFP has now written and published his own opinion piece on the subject of Hooper and crew - now you can legitimately have a go at him if you wish since these are his own words :-)

I was wondering how long it would take you to jump at the opportunity to publish more of Chris's trash. You certainly don't miss a chance. I am still waiting for you to publish Hooper's writing from her website. And don't give that crap of biases.

I already had a go at Chris and his foul mouth some years ago. Advertizers withdrew their ads and support causing his filthy publication to go under. You, yourself need to be careful.

[Guest Ed]

As a good portion of women's soccer coverage in past print issues of WFP consisted of reprints of Page 3 girls in various club and national team kits, I would hardly expect anything much from the mag in terms of objective coverage of this affair. I was not disappointed in that regard. Charmaine is a little uppity for the boot room set. Doesn't she know her place?

[Richard]

quote:Originally posted by The Ref

I was wondering how long it would take you to jump at the opportunity to publish more of Chris's trash. You certainly don't miss a chance. I am still waiting for you to publish Hooper's writing from her website. And don't give that crap of biases.

I already had a go at Chris and his foul mouth some years ago. Advertizers withdrew their ads and support causing his filthy publication to go under. You, yourself need to be careful.

You're right, I try to find whatever I can on the web about Canadian soccer and generally am able to publish a variety of items often covering a range of viewpoints. All except personal blog sites and if that bothers you then I'm afraid that's just too bad. If you have items to suggest that I have missed feel free to forward them to me, lots of other people do. If you wish to take issue with editorial policy or an opinion expressed on the site you're more than welcome to write to the editor@bcsoccerweb.com and your letter will most likely be published.

If you don't like what is published on World Football Pages don't take it up with me, go to the source. Indeed, why don't you pen a rebuttal - I will be happy to publish it for you if Chris won't. Oh, and Chris' latest 'trash' as you refer to it, was only published yesterday evening.

And what pray tell me, do I need to be careful about?

[The Ref]

It is just a conjecture that if a publication ticks off their supporters, they may withdraw their ads. Now if you are a rich person, well then don't worry about it. As far as composing a letter, I am done writing. Perhaps one day, but not now.

[Mark Bick]

Richard, Richard, Richard....you're really caught with your drawers down this time - that was a quote from Chris -- I presume Ed stands for Editor-- and you didn't bother to post one line from Grainey's article. If you're familiar with Tim's scribbling, you know that's not his style. Your eagerness --- selected posting --- puts it past debate -- you hate Charmaine.

Inside Soccer mag had/has its moments, some strong issues, strong voices...but no one promised more than WFP. Many issues were uneven, but there were always a core of great writing, and the talent that lad (Chris) was able to attract -outstanding. It's too bad that he couldn't find the funds, perhaps right publishing cycle, to keep that true core of original voices ,interested.

I think Chris is a great writer...unless he's off the rails. "Squeeze The Charmaine" ...well calling it flawed, bitter would be complimentary...it's horrible,,,,and the only aspect of that article that's not disposable...is wondering what transpired to lead to that twisted keyboarding.

[Richard]

Rubbish. I don't hate anybody associated with soccer - except perhaps those crude lowlifes who seem to find it necessary to hawk and spit all over the place in public. But I do dislike it when people pass judgement prematurely on significant issues based on preconceived notions or prejudices, incomplete, inadequate, uncorroborated, one-sided or third party information and don't wait till all the facts are in. I dislike it when people shoot the messenger because they don't like the message and I definitely dislike it when people accuse me of hating somebody because they don't like what some third person has said whom I happen to have quoted in an internet forum precisely because I perceived the quote as inflammatory and likely to stimulate disussion.

And finally I definitely dislike it when players - any players - are disrespectful towards our national team programs - that I take very personally.

[wfp]

Oh dear, what a mess. So of course I have to jump in and mess things up some more :-)

A couple of items before we get to Hooper...

REF... you're a funny sort eh. Bitter in a subtle way I think. And not at all accurate regarding that "filthy publication". Advertisers came and went for sure. Many had seasonal cycles which is normal, not alarming, and some did muse specific elements. The BCSA for instance frequently threatened to pull their page sponsorship given we printed opinions that were not always favourable. One retailer once pulled because of one specific article but his partner put them back on board for two years! Hell, we even had advertsiers that literally did not need to advertise anywhere, but did only to support WFP's growth. We were never so much losing advertisers over content as we/I failed to acquire enough new advertisers of sizable impact to balance the books. I don't at all mind you throwing your abuse around assuming you keep it accurate.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Give Richard a break for Christ's sake. BC Soccer Web is simply doing the job that any unbiased media source should be doing by printing my editorial, or any honest editorial/commentary/news article that circulates regarding Hooper. He's not doing WFP any special favours. However, Hooper's website is a self-serving promotional tool, NOT a news source.

Furthermore there may be legal aspects to Hooper's own online rants if in fact the courts have a gag order on all/any parties. Just a thought... not sure. The CSA fell slient but initially that was at the 'suggestion' of the lawyers.

ED... love that Page 3 idea of yours! Certainly wasn't mine now was it. Readers of WFP know very well that anything remotely naughty was usually about an inch big and didn't expose the hot spots. And we did enjoy featuring female fan photos... ooooh!! We also had oodles of women's coverage including articles, interviews, results, photos, whimsy, scathing critique and a fair whack of completely objective material. More than your slimy The Province eh what, much more. WFP applauded the women at club and country level when they earned it and tore em a new one when they didn't. We expected nothing less of them than we did the men, and in that regard our coverage was fair and honest, and diverse with half a dozen writers involved at any time.

You really should get your head out of your ass when you get on this forum because you could have just annoyed one of hundreds, if not thousands of our very supportive female readers.

OH THE IRONY

What makes me laugh these days is that in the past on this forum the scribes have ripped multiple anus' (or is that ani?) into guys like Radzinski when he's given the national team a cold shoulder simply because they weren't good enough for his expectations, and yet Mrs. Three-Time Boycotter Hooper is defended at every turn by almost everyone posting here. And nobody but Richard it appears is grasping what I'm bitching about... what's actually happening in all the backrooms and back pockets is semantics. The meat and potatoes of my rant is that Hooper has repeatedly proved a traitor to the team and the ethic and pride that bind such with country. Her methods are destructive and her goals disputable and it appears that she has little concept of how important playing for her country should be. Regardless of all she's done well in the past, she's spent the last 4 years boycotting everything she can. That's enough OK.

WHO wrote the damned cutline?...

Well I did of course, as Mark points out, though the 'Ed' was a recent addition when I learned of the confusion.

For the record, as with almost any publication, writers write articles but it's frequently the editors who have the last word, literally, regarding headlines, decks, subheads, cutlines etc etc. Hell, I've seen editors spend 4 hours rewriting just one headline for a cover story...seriously. Many writers bite their tongues of course and provide their editors with 'suggestions'. If they're good they may stick.

So I never actually expected the confusion, and for all those who were, be advised of the general rule. Thankyouverymuch.

FINALLY, MARK...

No beefs mate. Never have. In fact you're one good egg I never could talk into scribbling for WFP. I had hoped so because you were always honest, critical but fair and your tone far more level-headed than mine. You would have made a fine addition to the crew but alas, now I can only read your ramblings here, including those ripping me a new one for "Squeeze the Charmaine".

Oh hell yeah, it's no masterpiece that's for sure. It is what the titles implies... me farting in the breeze. I really just wanted to vent my frustration that blind eyes are being turned everywhere regarding Hooper's destructive track record, as if her heroe status has complete immunity from all crimes including attempting to derail our national team on multiple occasions. A century passed she'd be walk the plank for mutiny!

I'm sure if other news venues published some scathing critique Richard would link that aswell. Until then you've at least got mine even if it is "horrible" :-)

OK I'm done for another 6 months.

[Richard]

Heh heh, my post even got Chris out of the bushes!

[Mark Bick]

My previous post was a tad lazy, convienent in word choice, so Richard I do accept that you don't hate Ms. Hooper....but your participation on this issue goes beyond a bystander leaning towards the authority of our governing soccer body, that there's a touch of sadism in your relishing the lashing that Ms Hooper is getting from certain quarters... and I'm still giving you a yellow card for not immediately recognising Chris' cutline.

Again, "horrible" was a poor word choice in describing Chris' article, that he is one of the few canadian soccer writers who infuses a relaxed writing style with wit and logic, usually providing a very entertaining read...at the very least, a break from the usual fare we get hit with.

I could give a lengthy response to the "flaws" I perceive in his article, but this issue has been debated at great length. So I'll keep it short and toss out Gretzky's number...

In the "top 5 " canuck soccer stories the I wish would get that 8 page, well researched, great photos, great scribe, look back - the type of article that 442 tosses in to ( I suspect for many) help cool the burn of forking out $16 for the rag - treatment, is the numerous scenarios that swirled around the Canadian squad at the '99 Women's World Cup. Hooper and others stood up for the women's program and I truly believe they were instrumental in forcing the CSA to treat our "sisters" with dignity.

Kerfoot is obviously very successful ....but how smart can he be when he'd rather subsidize Even's view than WFP?

[Richard]

By no means do I relish what is happening between the Hooper three and Canadian soccer. The game would be much better off without such hysterics. I do feel however that one needs to recognise the reality of where the power and authority lies in the relationships between players and the governing body. Also one needs to recognise when there has been poor behaviour - no matter who it is. Some people may not like the power structure but until things change, that's the way it is. The world is not perfect and does not operate to give everybody satisfaction. Whining about it will change nothing.

And just because I pointed out what I believe to have been some misguided and poor behaviour on the part of Charmaine Hooper and quoted two articles critical of her does not mean I am down on her personally. There have been far more posts here cheerleading for her and her buddies, I suspect more because she is perceived as taking on the much criticised CSA head on than any real rational reasons based on hard facts. I recognise and laud her contributions on the field in years past and sympathise with her current plight but suggest she has brought this whole fiasco down on herself through her own behaviour.

If she didn't like the treatment she was getting or had real differences with the coaching staff and was unable to resolve either or both amicably and in private then she should have gracefully withdrawn from the program. She had a good inning and she would have gone out on a high note.

Nobody is compelled to accept carding monies or a Kerfoot stipend or play for Canada, it is all by invitation. If you don't like the package, go and do something else, don't bring Canadian soccer into public disrepute and threaten legal action. Such behaviour will not serve her best interests or the interests of Canadian soccer in the long term and begs the question, what is her real motive?